Perspetive on Islam and the United-States.

By Mark A. Schmidt.

Eating a burger with a conscience at IN-N-OUT.

Whenever I come to California, I make sure I always have a bite at an IN-N-OUT, definitely the best hamburger restaurant on the planet.

It has become an institution here in the Golden State since the first restaurant opened in 1948 and there are good reasons why that is.

Not only do they use natural, fresh ingredient, but they also have a great employee policy, so you can eat a burger and have a good (social) conscience.

The other day, I went to the IN-IN-OUT on Sunset Blvd (between La Brea and N Highland)....

... and I talked to the manager for a little while. A very nice guy. He has been working with them more than 20 years and one of his employees has been there 18 years. Not something you see in any other fast-food chain.

The meat is fresh, not frozen, and you can see the potatoes they use for the fries in the back kitchen. It is actually one of the only positive mentions in Fast Food Nation - a fascinating book on an investigation of the fast food industry that everyone should read -

The manager there also told me that it is difficult for IN-N-OUT to expand out east because it takes a lot of logistic to get the right fresh meat.

What I did not know though was that it is still a family business - owned by the grandchild of the founder. The manager there told me that they have a great employee policy, and indeed, unlike other fast food chains, they pay their employees significantly more than state and federally-mandated minimum wage. They also have all sort of positive incentives for their best employees - the guy told me he made a few trips to Europe thank to the company.

The other good thing is that their menu is very simple: three burger varieties: hamburger, cheeseburger, and "Double-Double" (or 2X2) - with or without onions and french fries.

But then, there's also their "secret menu" - the stuff that is not on the menu but that you can still order. I was told about it a few years back by friends here in CA, and it is fun because it makes you feel really special, like you're a local or something, which is always good when you're not.

NOTE: One thing I had never noticed before is that they also have discreet bible references at the bottom of their paper utensils, written in very small prints.

Times and Languages

This is what Benjamin Franklin wrote on the French and English languages more than 200 years ago :

French seems in point of universality to have supplied its [Latin’s] place.

(…/…).

This gives a considerable advantage to that nation. It enables its authors to inculcate and spread throughout nations such opinions and sentiments , as are more conducive to its interests or may contribute to its reputation by promoting the common interest of mankind.

(…/…)

Our English [language] bids fair to obtain the second place.

(…/…)

And if we were to endeavour the facilitation its progress, the study of our tongue might become much more general.

Letter by Benjamin Franklin to Noah Webster: on The English Language - Universality of the French language, 26 December 1789. (in The Works of Benjamin Franklin)

Today's Civil Right Issue.

Yesterday, the guest on Larry King Live (which I usually don't like) was American comedian Kathy Griffin. She was on the show not for her Emmy Awards controversial speech but for her activism in favor of gay rights - what is often called LGBT here in America (standing for Lesbian Gay Bisexual people).

The topic was Prop 8 - a very much discussed topic here in California. For those who may notknow, Prop 8 is a ballot proposition that would restrict marriage only to a man and a woman in the state of California and a majority of Californian voters (52%) agreed with the proposition, but it was recently struck down by a Federal court on the basis that it was discriminatory. The decision has been appealed and gay marriages have not resumed.

Griffin is not necessarily my cup of tea - she is too much out there, although she has the right personality for TV, but I liked that she said that the issue is not a gay issue but a civil rights issue. And when Larry King asked her about "Civil Unions" she rightfully said that for one thing, civil unions do not guarantee the same rights.
I think the legal issue is the most important one. Clearly history shows that the right things are not always the popular things.

That being said, a recent CNN poll suggests that more Americans are in favor of gay marriage :

This is only one poll, but what is even more interesting - and I believe very telling is the generation gap :

Nearly 60% Americans under the age of 50 say gay rights are protected under the Constitution. Only 38% of Americans over the age of 50 say the same thing.

And as can be expected the split is pretty clear between Democrats and Republican but this is one of the few instances when independents side with Democrats :

56 % of Democrats and 57 % of Independents think the Constitution conveys the right to marry to same-sex couples. Only a quarter of all Republicans agree.

These are interesting figures because they show that society is changing and is becoming more tolerant. But then again, rights take precedence over popularity - which is why it is actually very sad so see so many African Americans against gay marriage.
One argument I often hear from people opposing gay marriage is that "marriage" has always been with a man and a women. Well, yes, but it was also only between people of the same color for almost 200 years - in part of the country at least. Things change and as long as it goes towards more rights for individual, and that those changes do not take anyone's freedom away, change is good.

What I do not understand is why people are so worked up about it - giving more rights to people does not take away the rights from others.
Of course, a lot of the opponents are opposed on religious grounds - it turns out the Mormons had a big influence in the Prop8 campaign - but marriage does not have to be religious. And when people come up with the argument of the "sacredness of marriage," one can just point out the divorce rate or even better, the quick cheap weddings performed in Vegas. (Watch The Hangover, if you want to see why that's actually laughing matter!). Who are we kidding here?
Unfortunately, if the case goes all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Prop8 will be be upheld - most justices are conservative ... and old, and very unlikely to see it as a right. But it wouldn't be the first time that a Supreme Court would be on the wrong side of history!

It make take some time, but it'll happen and it is now just a matter of what side of history you want to be on.

In France :
Interestingly, polls in France show an even greater majority in favor of same-sex marriage and a slight majority of people in favor of gays adopting kids, but even though France has civil unions for people of the same sex, marriage is still illegal.

In Europe:
But that is bound to change fairly soon. Many countries in Europe already have it: the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Portugal and Iceland.

And people are ready for it :

A poll conducted by EOS Gallup Europe in 2003 found that 57 percent of the population in the then 15-member European Union support same-sex marriage. (Wiki)

Laws regarding same-sex partnerships in Europe Same-sex marriage Other type of partnership Unregistered cohabitation Issue under political consideration Unrecognized Constitution limits marriage to man–woman

How Many Morons are there exactly?

In case you're not convinced of how stupid people can be, (and how those are more easily found among Republicans) here are some rather telling figures for you :

- More than a third of conservative Republicans now say Obama is a Muslim, nearly double the percentage saying so early last year.

- Independents, too, are now more apt to see the president as a Muslim: Among independents, 18 percent say he is a Muslim, up eight percentage points.

- The number of people who now correctly identify Obama as a Christian has dropped to 34 percent, down from nearly half when he took office.

- Among those who say Obama is a Muslim, 60 percent say they learned about his religion from the media, suggesting that their opinions are fueled by misinformation.

But the shifting attitudes about the president's religious beliefs could also be the result of a public growing less enamored of him and increasingly attracted to labels they perceive as negative.

In other words, the less they like him, the more it means he's got to be a Muslim!

But I suppose that this must be put into perspective, since 21% of Americans also believe in witches.
And, 73% of Americans believe in at least one of the 10 items listed above, while 27% believe in none of them. (Thinkprogress)

Time: Is America Islamophobic?

Well, I do not seem to be the only one who has this concern, if it makes the cover of Time Magazine. Hell of a good question!

American Islamophobia bending the Constitution.

Whenever I come to the U.S. in the summer, it seems there is some collective hysteria or another - last year it was the health reform and "the government pulling the plug on grandma" (and Obama comparison with Hitler in insane town hall meeting)

This year, it is "the building of a Mosque on Ground Zero" or rather the building of a religious community center in downtown Manhattan, a few blocks from Ground Zero.

This has led to the most unbelievable islamophobic rhetoric I have ever heard in this nation.

Because this country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution (Oh, the irony!) freedom of religion is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. So it has been fascinating to see how the fear-monger right-wing politicians and media pundits have been able to argue around it. Essentially, it goes something like this: it is not about whether Muslims have the right to build a mosque but whether they should :

Jon Boehnet House Minority Leader "The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn't make it necessarily right to do so" (LATimes)

Sarah Palin "We all know they have the right to do it, but should they?"

In other words, they agree with the principle but not with the practice, which makes the principle totally irrelevant.

And then, there's Newt Gingrich who thinks we should lower our standard to those of Saudi Arabia!

This of course comes in the context of the mid-term elections coming up and has been a great opportunity for GOP leaders to use more of the politics of fear to win votes. (that along fears that the country was being swamped by a tide of illegal immigrants, etc...). What has been really creepy is to see that this particularly case has allowed people to raise questions about Islam itself without knowing anything about it. This is not just about fear, it is about ignorance and laziness - a lot of Americans do not know anything bout Islam and are not in the least bit interested.

They equal Islam with radicalism and even terrorism and that's that. Who cares if most of the victims of radical Islams - including terrorism - are Muslims themselves. (As a republican friend told me recently, they should just police themselves - whatever that means)

In a few conversations I have had with Republican friends in Orange county (CA), I have been just baffled by the extremism of their rhetoric - if you listened to them, we should really start seriously considering a 10th Crusade! (although they mentioned the 6th crusade without knowing that one already took place!). It makes you wonder if Samuel Huntington was onto something with his Clash of Civilization after all. But now what? Go to war with 1.5 billion people?

Unfortunately, this nonsensical reasoning has not been limited to the far-right wing nuts. Here's what Harry Reid the House majority leader said on this"The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else" (LA Times)

As always, it seems the Democrats are pretty much shitting in their pants (Excuse my French!) and show no political backbone.

This has gone so bad that for the president to reaffirm the fist Amendment has become a "political liability" and the media ponder over he may be politically hurt by his stance. (which makes you think that G.W. Bush's statement "Islam is a religion of peace" would be really radical today) .

The greatest disappointment is certainly the Anti-Defamation League which has used a similar (crooked) line of thought:

"ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain — unnecessarily — and that is not right." (Boston Globe)

A few hopeful notes though:

• NY Mayor Bloomberg has shown some very impressive courage in the face of criticism from his own political allies (and even hateful mail). (This NYTimes article has a very good analysis as to why).

Of course, his view is completely in line with a laissez-faire principles of old Republican ideaology - which the new right seems to have conveniently forgotten :

“If somebody wants to build a mosque in a place where it’s zoned for it and they can raise the money, then they can do that,” he said. “And it’s not the government’s business.”

Another note of hope is that a lot of the families of the victims of 911 have shown support for the religious center. (NYTimes)

It does make sense for them to support this project - as Bloomberg nicely put it in his speech - (notwithstanding the fact that many Muslims died on 911).

“We do not honor their lives by denying the very Constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights — and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.”

And of course, there is Jon Stewart - phew!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mosque-Erade
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

NOTE: Interestingly Thomas Jefferson explicitly included Islam in his defense for religious freedom in America mentioned Muslims (whom he called Mahometans) when writing about the movement for religious freedom in Virginia.

In his autobiography Jefferson wrote "[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word 'Jesus Christ,' so that it should read 'a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.' The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan , the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination. (Source)

Resuming activity on this blog.

Sorry to my readers for this long silent due to family matters and a long needed vacation. Activity on this blog will resume shortly.

The United States of Europe?

The Europe Union is often - wrongly - understood by Americans as the equivalent of the United-States (at least in its infancy).

Here's a good European perspective as to why the comparison does not stand, in this week's The Economist .

Americans who compare their two centuries of union to the six decades of European integration may think they are paying Europe a compliment. But it often comes across as condescension. Yes, it took America a while to form a federal government and issue a common currency, and America did fight a civil war. But European differences, whether of language, religion or history, go back millennia. Europe’s conflicts were not civil wars.

On numerous measures, Europe is more diverse than America.

Per-capita wealth in Mississippi, the poorest state, is almost two thirds the national average. But the poorest EU member, Bulgaria, stands at 38% of the union average.

Mississippi is also the most religious state: folks there are three times more likely to go to church weekly than in Vermont (the most secular state). Well, three quarters of Maltese and two thirds of Poles go to church once a week: just 3% of Danes do the same.

Mississippians are less likely than Californians to think global warming is a “very serious” problem, by 56% to 73%. Try Estonia, where just 42% think climate change is “very serious”, compared to 84% of Greeks.

Of course, there might be other differences too ...... ;-)

Guess Culture Vs. Ask Culture.

A friend of mine recently pointed out this post by Kevin Drum (famous American political blogger) on "Askers Vs. Guessers" written after reading a column on the Guardian website :

In some families, you grow up with the expectation that it's OK to ask for anything at all, but you gotta realize you might get no for an answer. This is Ask Culture.

In Guess Culture, you avoid putting a request into words unless you're pretty sure the answer will be yes. Guess Culture depends on a tight net of shared expectations. A key skill is putting out delicate feelers. If you do this with enough subtlety, you won't even have to make the request directly; you'll get an offer. Even then, the offer may be genuine or pro forma; it takes yet more skill and delicacy to discern whether you should accept.

My friend told me he thought of me because I'm an Asker whereas he's a Guesser (although, with time, we have probably both become more moderately so.).

For me, the problem with the Guessers is precisely that it is sometimes hard to figure out what they really mean, and as an Asker, I may easily offend them and so I may easily bad, if not guilty. Whereas I'm not subtle enough to be a Guesser, I can be sensitive enough to fear my Guesser friends may be offended which can make my life complicated at times.

So how do you recognize an Asker? Well, here's a clue :

... in many social situations (though perhaps not at work) the very fact that you're receiving an anxiety-inducing request is proof the person asking is an Asker. He or she is half-expecting you'll say no, and has no inkling of the torture you're experiencing. So say no, and see what happens. Nothing will. (The Guardian)

It's true that as an Asker, I have no problem with people telling me "no" (as long as they do nicely of course)., and I'd rather have that than a insincere 'yes' - even if I find it hard to sometimes say 'no' myself. This means these types may of course vary and we may be a bit of both, depending on the circumstances. I may also be a Guesser when I'm on the receiving end, and that's because of something else - guilt.

The Guardian column is right though that those differences are very cultural, and may partly explain cross-cultural awkwardness - between, for instance, Americans and Japanese (Japanese culture being more of a Guess Culture) but also between more similar cultures such as French and American.

My guess (no pun intended) is that generally speaking, European culture is probably more of a Guess-culture, which would make sense since it is rooted in traditions, old social codes and rather homogeneous history, whereas Americans are made up of immigrants with difference cultural backgrounds. But then, there are also huge differences within the United-States.

As my friend (who is American) reminded me, people in the Midwest - those of Nordic descent anyway - tend to be more Guessers, than, say, Cuban-American or even Californians who are mostly Askers.

A Little Sense of Humor Won't Hurt.

A few weeks ago, I heard about this funny ad for a low-cost German car hire company called Sixt (known for its provocative advertising) which read :

"Do like Madame Bruni: Go for a little French model".

Well, Charles Bremmer from The Times just wrote that they have now produced a French version of its current German campaign : As Bremmer reminds us, Sarkozy is usually quick to sue anyone who uses him or his wife for advertising and he is notoriously sensitive about his lack of height (see Le Parisien article on the net) I guess we'll soon see if he has a sense of humor. So far, it seems that the ad has only appeared on the internet.

Weeks ago, when the German version first appeared, Yann Barthes ( a French journalist/comedian) parodied the ad on Canal+ Grand Journal, with a Mercedes version that read:

“Faites comme Monsieur Merkel. Optez pour une grosse allemande”.
"Do like Mr Merkel, Go for a Big German Model".

NOTE: I also like this comment to Bremmer's post on the Sarkozy ad: "The advertising for manual transmission should have added: With short stick for convenient shifting of gears."! Excellent!

Why France Today is NOT Like France of Vichy Times.

This week's American magazine Newsweek had an article with this provocative title : France Today Looks Like France of Vichy Times, by David A. Bell. I must say I was a bit in shock when I saw see this in a so-called serious international magazine.

In France, it is usually the French opponents to Sarkozy on the extreme left who tend to make such nonsensical comparisons, but then again, that's excepted, they're on the extreme fringe and have little credibility precisely because of their extremism. (it's like comparing Arizona governor Jan Brewer to Hitler).

In case you're not familiar with French history, the comparison between France today and 1940 does not stand for many reasons and a couple big ones that are very obvious:

• France of 1940 was deeply shocked by the debacle and the defeat after the short "phony war"
• not only the defeat, but also the stigma of WWI some 22 years earlier partly explain why the National Assembly voted to grant extraordinary powers to Pétain, an 84 year-old man with the reputation of outstanding military leadership in the previous war who was seen as the savior of France.
  
• The Vichy government promulgated the first law of racial segregation in its homeland territory ever with the Statutes on Jews in October 1940. There is no such thing today. Even the much discussed anti-Burqa law does not even begin to compare.
  

Strangely enough, most of the article is actually about how different France today is from what it was in the 1940s, although in the 2nd paragraph, the writer points out that "70 years later, France is still very much, well, France.". Well, what do you expect? France to be ... the U.S.? Spain? This is clearly a ridiculous statement - the same can be said of any country, including - I'm afraid - the United-States.

Mr Bell seems to believe that the United-States has changed more and that "certain things about French society have remained remarkably constant since the blitzkrieg, particularly in comparison with the United States."
That may be, but it still does not mean that a comparison between France today and France in 1940 is fair and historically accurate.

Most important, the French state retains an outsize role in society. In a tradition of dirigisme (from the verb "to direct") that stretches back to the Old Regime, the state encases markets in thick webs of regulations while itself managing health care, most major cultural institutions, and most education from preschool to postdoctoral.
When President Nicolas Sarkozy took office in 2007, conservative American observers hoped he would emulate Margaret Thatcher and slash the state sector. But despite some tentative reforms, the state's authority remains largely unshaken (government expenditures consistently account for more than 50 percent of GDP, compared with barely 36 percent in the United States before the recession). And as in 1940, the most attractive career track for smart, ambitious students is the elite civil service.

This may be true but the same can be also be said of France of the early 20th century or of the 1930s, or of the 1950s.... or even of the 19th century. As Bell himself noted, dirigisme in France is nothing new. You may argue it is a bad thing, but it is certainly not a distinct feature of 1940. So why pick 1940?

Bell's second point is about the "furious outbursts of prejudice and agonized debates about 'French identity.'" both in 1940 and today:

In 1940 the worst outbursts were directed at the Jews, and they set the stage for the anti-Semitic policies of the collaborationist Vichy government, which willingly sent 76,000 French Jews to their deaths in the Nazi extermination camps.
Today, the far less noxious but still objectionable National Front party derives its support largely from hostility to French Arabs, and the debates focus on whether the secular republic can "integrate" Muslim populations. The Sarkozy administration has wrestled awkwardly with the issue, creating a Ministry of Immigration and National Identity, and trying to ban women from publicly wearing burqas. Concerns about "Islamicization" are in fact mostly exaggerated, and the anger expressed by young French Muslims (for instance, in the massive 2005 riots around depressed housing projects) results less from a generalized hostility toward French society than toward the isolation they feel from it."

How is it exactly that the Vichy government sending 76,000 French Jews to their deaths in the Nazi extermination camps can compare to creating a Ministry of Immigration and National Identity, and trying to ban women from publicly wearing burqas?

I am not the last person to criticize Sarkozy for his policies (see here, here, here or here) which I think are too nationalistic (in the wrong sense of the term) but the comparison to Vichy is absolutely outrageous - particularly since it trivializes the genocide of the Jews and the other victims of the death camps.
I agree with Mr Bell that "the debate over immigration is passionate and intense." but precisely, there IS a debate which was not the case in 1940 and the debate , by the way, is not about whether France should send Arabs to death camps or even have them wear yellow badges.
You may find the current climate in France detestable or even nauseous - I do - but it is not very different from what is going on in the rest of Europe (Italy or even Britain) or even in the United-States with illegal immigration or the tea-party movement (and its racist undertone).

Overall, the articles makes some interesting points but its basic thesis is strangely not up to the game. As we say in French, "Comparaison n'est pas raison" (i.e. comparison proves nothing). In this case the comparison between France today and Vichy France is not only an intellectual fallacy - which is all the more surprising coming from a writer who is a respectable historian from Princeton - it is also a dangerous one which falls into the trap of Reducto ad hitlerum (or in this case, Reducto ad petainum) which as the Godwin Law states, robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

Finally, the last sentence of the article, while being extremely condescending, may be the truest :

But in its very passion and intensity it reveals yet another continuity between 1940 and 2010—namely that the subject on which the French speak most eloquently, and most engagingly, is still themselves.

But again, isn't that true of any given country? Watch the U.S. news, and you'll see how much is devoted to international issues. It seems almost ironic for an American to criticize the French for being self-absorbed. If I used a cheap argument, I'd say that at least, the French do it eloquently.
(and that, by the way, is just as condescending except it is a French joke which is based on the assumption that my American readers have a good sense of humor).

Nationalist Populism in France and the U.S.

One common trend I see these days in both France (or Europe at large) and the U.S. is how politicians use fear and nationalist populism at the expense of freedom for quick political gain and how the media play along to make an extra buck.

In France, it is not only the success of the right-wing 'Front National' (a party which has advocated sending African immigrants back to the continent) in the regional elections, it is also the government itself which has pandered to anti-immigrant sentiment to try to divert attention from problems they can't solve (the economic crisis) and to woo their most extreme right-wing voters. They initiated an unnecessary debate on French identity (which eventually back-lashed) and are now ready to vote a law to ban the full-body veil (which really concerns a mere 2,000 women in the whole country at the most). Meanwhile people are struggling with trying to find a job or making ends meet when they have one, and most worry more about the national debt than about the full-body veil or their national identity.

In the U.S. there seems to be similar tendency towards strong anti illegal immigration. Of course, illegal immigration causes serious problems and the current violence across the border in Mexican cities makes people very nervous, but this does not explain why Arizona Governor Jan Brewer claims her state has been under "terrorist attack" by illegal immigrants:

It blows my mind that the new anti-illegal immigration law was even voted. It requires the police “when practicable” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization. It also allows the police to charge immigrants with a state crime for not carrying immigration documents. And it allows residents to sue cities if they believe the law is not being enforced.

Obviously, there is no way one can spot an illegal immigrant from a regular immigrant or from an American citizen of Hispanic decent - a fact acknowledged by the governor herself, whose discomfort at the question is pretty obvious :

She nonetheless signed the bill - who cares if it's unenforceable. The same could be said about the full veil ban in France.

I am amazed how easily political leaders can do away with constitutional principles. There is a backlash of course and some people will oppose them but it still means that enough people are okay with those laws so that they can be passed. Where is the tea-party movement who claims that there's too much interference of government in their lives? Their silence is evidence of their political bias.

As a side note, it must be added that while in France, you are supposed to carry some form of ID with you, it is also illegal to ask anyone for their identification in the streets without probable cause (see here in French).

Online Connections.

Here's some interesting data I found recently on Chrisharrison.net

It is "a set of visualizations that display how cities across the globe are interconnected (by router configuration and not physical backbone)" as of 2007.

The result is of no surprise - most of the online connections take place in north America and Europe. So goes the world wide web!

World Connection Density

ty

World City-to-City Connections

Oil Drilling and the Benefit of Regulation.

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is an embarrassment for Barack Obama who accepted more drilling off the coast to secure the support of both Republicans and moderate Democrats to get the climate-change bill (especially the the cap-and-trade) through the Senate.

But even though the GOP is trying to spin the crisis into an "Obama's Katrina", it is the Republicans and their "drill baby drill" chanters who should be mortified.
Worse still, even though the investigation is still pending, it seems already that the oil well lacked safeguard device (WSJ) which is required by other countries and used by other oil companies.

In 2000, the federal agency that oversaw oil rig safety issued a safety alert that called added layers of backup "an essential component of a deepwater drilling system." The agency said operators were expected to have multiple layers of protection to prevent a spill.

The industry aggressively lobbied against an additional layer of protection known as an "acoustic system," saying it was too costly. In a March 2003 report, the agency reversed course, and said that layer of protection was no longer needed. (ABC News)

The investigation seems to focus on another big name - Halliburton which seems to have a poor record on the job :

Investigators delving into the causes of the massive gulf oil spill are examining the role of Houston-based Halliburton Co., the giant energy services company that was responsible for cementing the deepwater drill hole, as well as the possible failure of equipment leased to British Petroleum.

Halliburton has been accused of performing a poor cement job in the case of a major blowout in the Timor Sea off Australia last August. An investigation is underway.(LATimes)

According to experts cited in Friday's Wall St. Journal, the timing of last week's cement job in relation to the explosion -- only 20 hours beforehand, and the history of cement problems in other blowouts "point to it as a possible culprit." Robert MacKenzie, managing director of energy and natural resources at FBR Capital Markets and a former cementing engineer, told the Journal, "The initial likely cause of gas coming to the surface had something to do with the cement." (LATimes)

Halliburton, in case someone forgot, was the big oil company that was granted a major contract in rebuilding Iraq while Vice President Cheney was still on its payroll. (see here or here)

Ironically, the last time Halliburton was heard of in Louisiana was when they were granted a $29.8 million contract for cleanup work in the wake of Katrina through their subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (Joker to the Thief & Molly Ivins)

Something that must have been missed by Senator Landrieu of Lousiana, a conservative Democrat and long supporter of off-shore drilling who continues to support drilling. I am not sure how well this is going to play with her electorate.

Some may agree with Sarah Palin that "No human endeavor is ever without risk", but most will probably wonder whether we can learn from past mistakes and support MORE REGULATION to minimize the risks. Something most right-wing republicans are too stubbornly ideological to see.